Johnson, any chance you could take a look at the effect of the choice of words on the perception of the on-going financial crisis? My suspicion is that there is an imbalance in the meaning and strength of words that describe markets and assets going up and down.

for example, an increase of 10% is usually described as a 'rise', whereas a decrease of exactly the same amount is invariably a 'plunge'. One word is mildly beneficial, the other is a disaster. And yet all that has really happened is we're back where we started.

Of course the choice of words reflects the bias that rising markets increase wealth, falling does the opposite. Whilst this is true, I believe that the choice of words has actually exacerbated the financial crisis. Would there have been less panic (and therefore less real plunges) if a 10% decrease was described in exactly those terms?